Ivy Bridge performance figures

Discussion of all forms of processors, from AMD to Intel to VIA.

Moderators: Flying Fox, morphine

Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:47 pm

Ivy Bridge performance comparison to Sandy Bridge. Anyone has any idea how on-die graphics processor affects dedicated video card?
Core i7 960 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1.5TB HD | Asus GTX Titan | Dell WFP 3008 30" 2560x1600 | Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
michael_d
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:42 pm

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:30 pm

michael_d wrote:Ivy Bridge performance comparison to Sandy Bridge. Anyone has any idea how on-die graphics processor affects dedicated video card?

I am confused. Discrete video card is discrete, why would the on-die graphics unit have any effect?
Image
The Model M is not for the faint of heart. You either like them or hate them.

Gerbils unite! Fold for UnitedGerbilNation, team 2630.
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 24289
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:42 pm

Flying Fox wrote:
michael_d wrote:Ivy Bridge performance comparison to Sandy Bridge. Anyone has any idea how on-die graphics processor affects dedicated video card?

I am confused. Discrete video card is discrete, why would the on-die graphics unit have any effect?


If there are 2 graphical sources a dedicated one and an on-die one, the video cable is connected to a dedicated source and monitor. Obviously one would expect the dedicated graphics source to produce an image but are there any settings in bios that would to set the priority and/or disable on-die graphics? I guess the simple question is can an on-die graphics source somehow interfere with the dedicated one?
Core i7 960 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1.5TB HD | Asus GTX Titan | Dell WFP 3008 30" 2560x1600 | Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
michael_d
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:42 pm

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:26 pm

Short answer is no, the IGP on Ivy Bridge will not affect your discrete card just like it doesn't for Sandy Bridge.

Right now if you plug your monitor into the discrete card, thats the only thing that gets used, same is true for the opposite. Unfortunately, quicksync is on the IGP. Lucidlogix has one of the few (if only) software (Virtu) that allows the user to utilize their discrete card for gaming and still have quicksync available without having to reach back and switch plugs. Its still in its infancy and has a bit of ground to cover yet, but overall its a great product with a very bright future ahead of it. I'm not aware that they are selling it on the consumer market yet, just OEM's I believe. (correct me if I'm wrong)

You can have a read through TR's praises of Lucid's Virtu software if you like.

You may be getting confused with AMD solutions that utilize a kind of on-board cross-fire connection between the IGP on their Llano processors to a cheap discrete GPU in order to have the benefits of two graphics processors working together. I have no first hand experience with AMD Hydra implementations so I don't feel comfortable commenting much more on that subject, but I do believe you have the option to disable that function if desired.
i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-m, Asus GTX660 TOP, 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 8GB G-Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
DPete27
Gerbil Jedi
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:55 am

CPU and GPU performance were never really anything I was worried about with IB. Performance of the CPU should be slightly better than SNB, and the GPU portion, which I won't be using, should be significantly better.

All I really want to see is the power consumption values. An IB CPU around 2.8-3.0GHz would be my friend.
i7 860 - GA-P55-USB3 - 8GiB - HD7850 - SSD - 3.64TB HDD - Xonar D1 - U2410 - Win7 Pro x64.
DancinJack
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:15 am

You want power consumption, feast your eyes. 77W good enough for ya?
i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-m, Asus GTX660 TOP, 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 8GB G-Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
DPete27
Gerbil Jedi
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:38 am

77W is just fine. I have a 95W Lynnfield right now. Odd that the 3770K doesn't include VT-d but the 3770 does. Here's to hoping the 3770 is >= 300.
i7 860 - GA-P55-USB3 - 8GiB - HD7850 - SSD - 3.64TB HDD - Xonar D1 - U2410 - Win7 Pro x64.
DancinJack
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:48 am

DancinJack wrote:Here's to hoping the 3770 is >= 300.


Do you mean <= $300? You're saying you hope its $300 or more...
Having twins has dramatically reduced the time I have to nerd out.
Corrado
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Gilbertsville, PA

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:56 am

Corrado wrote:
DancinJack wrote:Here's to hoping the 3770 is >= 300.


Do you mean <= $300? You're saying you hope its $300 or more...


I do mean <=.
i7 860 - GA-P55-USB3 - 8GiB - HD7850 - SSD - 3.64TB HDD - Xonar D1 - U2410 - Win7 Pro x64.
DancinJack
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:01 pm

DancinJack wrote:I do mean <=.

I'm just being a pedant. :) Don't mind me.
Having twins has dramatically reduced the time I have to nerd out.
Corrado
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Gilbertsville, PA

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:50 pm

Corrado wrote:I'm just being a pedant. :) Don't mind me.


:evil: :x

I know.
i7 860 - GA-P55-USB3 - 8GiB - HD7850 - SSD - 3.64TB HDD - Xonar D1 - U2410 - Win7 Pro x64.
DancinJack
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:32 pm

DPete27 wrote:You want power consumption, feast your eyes. 77W good enough for ya?

A short glance at that table reveals that Intel is segmenting the living **** out of the market again. VT-D on some processors, but not others? No VT-D on the fastest, most expensive CPU of the line-up? Their marketing guys must really be loving their jobs :evil:

edit: Oh and don't forget the faster GPU on the processors that most likely will get a dedicated GPU anyway. Same **** , but with lower power consumption. Join me in a celebratory dance! I really wish AMD could properly compete with Intel and force them release products more adjusted to our needs.
Firestarter
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:12 am

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:51 pm

It's for the business world. Those graphics are good enough for most desk jobs and anymore for most home computers.
tfp
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:09 am

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:51 pm

Woa woa, take it easy. Vt-d is disabled in Sandy Bridge "K" series CPU's also. Nothing new there.

As far as the gpu's, I completely agree. Intel's approach to the IGPs is completely backwards. However, they did something similar when Sandy Bridge first came out and later introduced products like the i3-2105 with HD 3000 graphics.

Personally, I'm very excited for Ivy Bridge as I've been painstakingly holding onto my C2D E8400 instead of upgrading to Sandy Bridge. April can't come soon enough.
i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-m, Asus GTX660 TOP, 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 8GB G-Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
DPete27
Gerbil Jedi
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:14 pm

DPete27 wrote:Woa woa, take it easy. Vt-d is disabled in Sandy Bridge "K" series CPU's also. Nothing new there.

Yes, nothing new there, that's my point. If Intel had anything to fear for this line of CPU's, they wouldn't have disabled VT-D. But with how things are going now, their Ivy Bridge line up is just a big "this is how we're going to sell it and you're buying, so **** you" to us.

Please don't mind the **** **** **** , TRs language filter works just fine :wink:
Firestarter
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:12 am

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:20 am

Hi, long time reader, first time poster, anyhow on to the question :

With regards to the 3770, will the presence of active VT-d /vPro/TXT silicon in addition to the slightly lower stock clock speed significantly lower the overclocking headroom ?

As far as i can judge from the oveview post, aside from the inclusion of the extra features and slightly lower stock speed, theres not much difference between it and it's k variant, but without a benchmark to go by comparing the two i am unsure which chip to buy, and I would rather not buy a chip that looks good on paper, but which fails to OC to a reasonable degree compared to it's slightly more expensive cousin.
Phaydren
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:53 am

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:25 am

Welcome to the Forums, Phaydren.

Q: What is VT-d and why would anyone want it in an Intel CPU again?
Laptop: HP Pavilion 17-e016dx. AMD A8-5550M, 4GB RAM, 750GB HDD, AMD Radeon HD 8550G integrated video, 17.3" display, 1600*900 (HD+) resolution, SD card reader, Windows 8.1 (DL Classic Shell)
riviera74
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:14 am
Location: FM, FL, USA

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:27 am

riviera74 wrote:Welcome to the Forums, Phaydren.

Q: What is VT-d and why would anyone want it in an Intel CPU again?

Hardware support for virtualization.
It is one of the blessings of old friends that you can afford to be stupid with them. Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20112
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:52 am

Hardware support for virtualization. OK. What does anyone use that for?
Laptop: HP Pavilion 17-e016dx. AMD A8-5550M, 4GB RAM, 750GB HDD, AMD Radeon HD 8550G integrated video, 17.3" display, 1600*900 (HD+) resolution, SD card reader, Windows 8.1 (DL Classic Shell)
riviera74
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:14 am
Location: FM, FL, USA

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:58 am

riviera74 wrote:Hardware support for virtualization. OK. What does anyone use that for?

Well, virtualization. VMware, Virtual PC, Xen, Virtualbox, KVM, Parallells Desktop, you name it. In a very simplified way, it speeds up virtualization environments by a healthy dose.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9934
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:35 pm

Phaydren wrote:With regards to the 3770, will the presence of active VT-d /vPro/TXT silicon in addition to the slightly lower stock clock speed significantly lower the overclocking headroom ?

As far as i can judge from the oveview post, aside from the inclusion of the extra features and slightly lower stock speed, theres not much difference between it and it's k variant, but without a benchmark to go by comparing the two i am unsure which chip to buy, and I would rather not buy a chip that looks good on paper, but which fails to OC to a reasonable degree compared to it's slightly more expensive cousin.
Only the K version has an unlocked multiplier, so for all practical purposes only the K can be overclocked (to any significant degree). If you want to overclock, you want the K version, and essentially no other considerations apply.

The VT-d and TXT features really have nothing to do with overclocking except that Intel, in its product segmentation wisdom, has made them mutually exclusive with an unlocked multiplier. I've never seen any kind of technical argument for this: it seems to be purely a case of different features for (presumed) different markets. Intel thinks VT-d and TXT are of interest to corporate / professional buyers who would never allow their systems to be overclocked, which is probably true; it doesn't think they're of interest to enthusiasts who do overclock, which may not be. (Why they don't have a top-of-the-line-with-all-the-boxes-checked model, I have no idea. Seems like it would sell).

Note, however, that VT-d is not the same as VT-x. VT-x is the basic hardware virtualization feature, and it is present in both K and non-K versions. This is generally all that is required for virtualization software that requires hardware virtualization, so as far as that software is concerned all the top CPU models (K and not) have that support. VT-d is virtualized IO, also called an IOMMU, which enables the virtualization of DMA devices, allowing for a more complete virtualization including isolation of devices (without enormous memory-copying penalties), and may be required to enable certain features in virtualization software.

Virtualization is incredibly useful for running more than one OS at the same time, whether it is to run a virtual server for testing server-side code without requiring a separate machine, testing code on multiple versions of Windows, or running a Windows box inside Linux (or vice versa). It's also handy if you have code you don't trust (whether it's potentially malicious or buggy): install it on a virtual machine and it doesn't matter how messed up things get, since you can just shut it down and start over with a fresh VM image. Virtualized IO extends that to hardware, enabling you to work with hardware or drivers you don't trust, or even multiple versions of a driver at the same time.
UberGerbil
Gerbil Khan
 
Posts: 9971
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:34 am

UberGerbil wrote:
Phaydren wrote:With regards to the 3770, will the presence of active VT-d /vPro/TXT silicon in addition to the slightly lower stock clock speed significantly lower the overclocking headroom ?

As far as i can judge from the oveview post, aside from the inclusion of the extra features and slightly lower stock speed, theres not much difference between it and it's k variant, but without a benchmark to go by comparing the two i am unsure which chip to buy, and I would rather not buy a chip that looks good on paper, but which fails to OC to a reasonable degree compared to it's slightly more expensive cousin.
Only the K version has an unlocked multiplier, so for all practical purposes only the K can be overclocked (to any significant degree). If you want to overclock, you want the K version, and essentially no other considerations apply.

The VT-d and TXT features really have nothing to do with overclocking except that Intel, in its product segmentation wisdom, has made them mutually exclusive with an unlocked multiplier. I've never seen any kind of technical argument for this: it seems to be purely a case of different features for (presumed) different markets. Intel thinks VT-d and TXT are of interest to corporate / professional buyers who would never allow their systems to be overclocked, which is probably true; it doesn't think they're of interest to enthusiasts who do overclock, which may not be. (Why they don't have a top-of-the-line-with-all-the-boxes-checked model, I have no idea. Seems like it would sell).

Note, however, that VT-d is not the same as VT-x. VT-x is the basic hardware virtualization feature, and it is present in both K and non-K versions. This is generally all that is required for virtualization software that requires hardware virtualization, so as far as that software is concerned all the top CPU models (K and not) have that support. VT-d is virtualized IO, also called an IOMMU, which enables the virtualization of DMA devices, allowing for a more complete virtualization including isolation of devices (without enormous memory-copying penalties), and may be required to enable certain features in virtualization software.

Virtualization is incredibly useful for running more than one OS at the same time, whether it is to run a virtual server for testing server-side code without requiring a separate machine, testing code on multiple versions of Windows, or running a Windows box inside Linux (or vice versa). It's also handy if you have code you don't trust (whether it's potentially malicious or buggy): install it on a virtual machine and it doesn't matter how messed up things get, since you can just shut it down and start over with a fresh VM image. Virtualized IO extends that to hardware, enabling you to work with hardware or drivers you don't trust, or even multiple versions of a driver at the same time.


Thanks for the in depth reply UberGerbil, perfectly answered my question. I was not aware that the k models only came with unlocked multipliers, so in hindsight, my question does seem a bit silly, should have done more digging into the chip spec sheets (Good thing I asked, as I was fully intending to buy a 3770, now it seems it will have to be a K model, though even had I bought the 3770, it's still leaps and bounds better than my current Q6600, overclocked or not).
Phaydren
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:53 am

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Sun May 27, 2012 6:24 pm

UberGerbil wrote:Why they don't have a top-of-the-line-with-all-the-boxes-checked model, I have no idea. Seems like it would sell.


They do. It's called SBE. Presumably, IBE will also have both VT-d and an unlocked multiplier.
Majiir Paktu
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:16 pm

Re: Ivy Bridge performance figures

Postposted on Wed May 30, 2012 10:16 am

Majiir Paktu wrote:
UberGerbil wrote:Why they don't have a top-of-the-line-with-all-the-boxes-checked model, I have no idea. Seems like it would sell.


They do. It's called SBE. Presumably, IBE will also have both VT-d and an unlocked multiplier.


Only thing is, as you might expect, with a "top-of-the-line-with-all-the-boxes-checked model", it aint gonna be cheap!

However, as with most things hardware-related, if you're willing to wait a little while, and get the next step down from top-of-the-line, you can still get something with pretty good performance, and at a much more sensible price.

This will probably be my next desktop upgrade.
Core i7-3820 SBE 3.6

This way you can have all the gaming performance you want, and still be able to use the hardware VM for "serious apps." :wink:
thedude
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 12:19 am


Return to Processors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests